Praise for Rick's Basic Product Line

[Ric_MEL]

It's all you need.<...snip..> There's no need.

well.. that's all YOU need maybe.. but: there's lots of other people out there.. ( potential customers mind you...)

I'm not sure why there is so frequently the occurrence of Holier than thou bashing < other makers > in tandem with praising RIC guitars.

Yes.. RIC was fortunate to have the Beatles pick up their guitars 50 years ago.... the stars aligned.. and then made the most of that opportunity by VERY prudently managing their business.. and they make great guitars.. and I hope it continues !

Not everyone can afford a $1,500 - $3,000 guitar. Those other heathens ... . with all their permutations.. allow anyone from a 10 year old kid to < the sky's the limit > to have an iconic guitar.. maybe they'll take up music seriously because they could buy a $150 Squire .. then a $300 Epiphone.. There are people who LIKE the option of getting just the right profile neck.. in their choice of fretboard wood.. with any Fret style.. .. choice of body wood... single coil / P90 / Humbucker combination to match what their fingers and ears like.

I personally don't feel better about owning my RIC by putting down < others >. I feel good bout owning my RICs.. because I like my RICs. ( and I have a Strat.. a few inexpensive Tele's which I love.. and an EPI Dot) . Like children: I like each for what it is ... at the end of the day.. it's the music/tone you can get out of your guitar.. .. not it's pedigree..

To each their own.. One size does not fit ALL

[Scastles]

Ric_Mel.

I own four of the guitars by my nameless manufacturer. I call them my Holier than thou guitars. Furthermore, other than abusive quantities, I didn't diss the manufacturer itself.
And BTW, I no longer own any Ricks.
I was simply pointing out that one manufacturer has too many models (there are others as well). You can have low end prices, middles and highs, even reissues. You can have different tone woods, guards, fretboard material, etc, but do you seriously need over 100 of them to meet any or all of this criteria?
Strictly my opinion. It's the one just opposite of yours.

[collin]

Mark---RIC didn't ship their manufacturing jobs overseas, including to third world countries. That ALONE puts them on a higher pedestal than Fender, Gibson, Gretsch etc. (not to mention they never had a "dark age" like Norlin Gibson, CBS Fender or Baldwin Gretsch). I respect that and it's an observation against these other companies, not my opinion or bashing. Just stating the facts...

I have all kinds of guitars from all the manufacturers, but still appreciate why RIC has done in sticking to their roots and staying in the USA.

Personally, I don't think a 10-year-old should be able to afford whatever guitar he wants. You don't see me crying because I can't own a $15k entry-level Ferrari. Some things are a privilege to own, not a right.

From a consumer POV, I would have been pretty upset if I owned a real Paul Reed Smith and they suddenly released the Santana SE model....made in Asia, super cheap. It dilutes the brand...

[Ric_MEL]

Hey SCastles,
Strictly my opinion. It's the one just opposite of yours.

correct! viva la forum.. you have opinions as do we all.

While I too wonder at the myriad of permutations within what is basically the marketing machine for these Heathen brands.. I assume they do it because: it works.. they sell more product.. and with more choice customers can select the item<s> of their choice to spend their money on. I'm sure the business model is in effect: models that don't sell or carry their weight ( re: the production costs.. , the marketing efforts, dealer support.. .. etc ) .. get dropped.

" Need " ? .. ya.. I guess they've decided they do..

IMHO.. it's like saying I like Vanilla, Cherry and even Rocky Road ice cream.. so it's crazy that Baskin Robbins has all those unnecessary flavors..

I will say .. When I see these high volume name brands.. and see them offer models that are multi Thousand Dollars ... I don't have the confidence they have the build quality to justify the $$.. whereas I do with a Rickenbacker. Maybe Gretch Pro-Lines.. but really not much confidence in the others..

[Ric_MEL]

Hey Collin,

Yep .. the RIC business model has been unique. They make a very high end product.. expensive, ( no where what they could charge actually. INEXPENSIVE for the quality you're getting ).

* I certainly appreciate RICs history.. USA production.. and quality guitars. Absolutely.

Maybe RIC makes better quailty guitars than 90% of the stuff that bears their brand name.. but "they" are catering to and addressing a much broader, wider market demographic..

* No one is saying a 10 year old should have a RIC. but he should be able to have something.. so should a high school garage band kid.... or a 40 year old guy who's always wanted to play guitar.. and decides to late in life.. etc etc. < those guys > are hitting those markets with their varied model selection and off shore production etc. etc. - and RIC is hitting theirs

[Scastles]

IMHO.. it's like saying I like Vanilla, Cherry and even Rocky Road ice cream.. so it's crazy that Baskin Robbins has all those unnecessary flavors..
.

There is also over 7000 varieties of apples in the world and 600 varieties of oranges.

[nukebass]

Mark---RIC didn't ship their manufacturing jobs overseas, including to third world countries. That ALONE puts them on a higher pedestal than Fender, Gibson, Gretsch etc. ...

In my opinion, this doesn't put them on a higher pedastal than anyone. This is a business decision RIC has made and since it isn't in the low end market that would require over seas manufacturing to be cost competitive, it is a decision that makes sense. I also don't believe that manufacturing jobs automatically belong in America. When companies manufacture over seas, you are providing income to these people that they wouldn't have otherwise. Sure, their standard of living may not be where ours is yet, but they may never have a chance to get here if large economies don't send jobs their way. Remember, too, that most of the high end guitars that RIC competes with are still made in America so those manufacturing jobs haven't been sent anywhere.

However, with all of that being said, the simplicity of the product line is nice since if you want a 360, for instance, you only have five colors to choose from.

[Tommy]

.. I assume they do it because: it works.. they sell more product..

Yeah, but WHAT product are they selling? I bought a Made In Mexico Fender Jazz Bass. Did I really buy a Fender Jazz Bass? People buy Epiphone Les Pauls. Did they really buy a Les Paul?

The point is by calling everything out there a Les Paul, who really has a Les Paul? Hell, Fiat can put the name Ferrari on any car they want, I suppose. But just because a car is badged FERRARI are you buying a Ferrari when you buy a four-seater with a 200 horsepowered engine?

It is obvious that all the Strats and Les Pauls and SGs out there is a simple marketing gimmick. Let's change things but continue to call it a Les Paul because people want to own a "Les Paul." Some may call it a business model, others can call it a scam.

[rickenbrother]

How about those L.A. Kings!! WooHoo!!

[Grey]

How about those L.A. Kings!! WooHoo!!

Excuse me, but you're interrupting our pointless arguing.

[tooloose]

Great debate going on here. I'll add my 2 cents: It has to cost more to manage many guitar lines - logistically it would be a nightmare. One would have to determine how many of each model to make in each of the possible variations, then work those variations into the production line, product brochures, wholesale dealings with distributors/dealers, dealings with parts suppliers, etc. That's what some would call overhead - it takes people, machines, and time, not to mention the extra number of different parts for each variant, to make this happen. More complexity, more cost. You would have to sell a bunch of guitars (again my opinion) to cover these extra costs. Hopefully these manufacturers have taken all of this into consideration when making their decisions about product lines.

Personally I prefer the simple approach - spend your money on the best material (rather than all the variations) and then provide the best product with a few (but not too many) options.

[collin]

.. I assume they do it because: it works.. they sell more product..

Yeah, but WHAT product are they selling? I bought a Made In Mexico Fender Jazz Bass. Did I really buy a Fender Jazz Bass? People buy Epiphone Les Pauls. Did they really buy a Les Paul?

The point is by calling everything out there a Les Paul, who really has a Les Paul? Hell, Fiat can put the name Ferrari on any car they want, I suppose. But just because a car is badged FERRARI are you buying a Ferrari when you buy a four-seater with a 200 horsepowered engine?

It is obvious that all the Strats and Les Pauls and SGs out there is a simple marketing gimmick. Let's change things but continue to call it a Les Paul because people want to own a "Les Paul." Some may call it a business model, others can call it a scam.

It has to cost more to manage many guitar lines - logistically it would be a nightmare. One would have to determine how many of each model to make in each of the possible variations, then work those variations into the production line, product brochures, wholesale dealings with distributors/dealers, dealings with parts suppliers, etc. That's what some would call overhead - it takes people, machines, and time, not to mention the extra number of different parts for each variant, to make this happen. More complexity, more cost. You would have to sell a bunch of guitars (again my opinion) to cover these extra costs. Hopefully these manufacturers have taken all of this into consideration when making their decisions about product lines.

Personally I prefer the simple approach - spend your money on the best material (rather than all the variations) and then provide the best product with a few (but not too many) options.

Huge +1 to both of you guys.

A lot of companies don't understand that there is a fundamental difference between being the biggest company possible and being the best company possible.

Likewise, there is no direct correlation between a company's size (or their product line size) and profitability. If you can make a few products well, make them on your own terms and have more control over production and distribution, you can increase your profit margins far past the corporate giants that want to hit every consumer on every consumer level with a huge variety of similar products. That creates marketplace confusion and unnecessary stress on production.

[cjj]

In my opinion, it mostly comes down to how MBAs you have on staff. If you've got a bunch of them, profit and the bottom line are all that matter, so you do whatever it takes to make the next quarter look good...

[collin]

Is that a bad thing though? Any company thy disregards profitability is dead in the water. It doesn't take an MBA to realize that either.

Now....maintaining profitability while limiting the growth of a company and/or practicing ethical, responsible business is up to that company's discretion.

[manta]

I've been buying and using RIC products for nearly 50 years now because of the quality, consistency and beauty of the instruments. It is hard to maintain such standards over that period of time and longer so my hat goes off to this company. They're doing something right.